What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5175031 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 5175031?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5175031?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5175031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12559966-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5175031 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 5175031?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5175031?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5175031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12559966-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

60 Jacksons Road, Lyttelton, Lyttelton 8082 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5175031 — Boarding House

Reasons

Ms Ito attended the hearing for the applicant. The hearing was held by way of video conferencing. Ms Sultan was phoned on the number provided but the call went to voicemail.

Ms Ito lives in Japan. She was wanting to come to New Zealand with her young son to enable him to study for 11 weeks at an international school. Her friend, Ms Mei Kyobashi, found accommodation advertised on Facebook by the respondent, Ms Sultan. Ms Kyobashi knew Ms Sutton, so she phoned her and arranged for Ms Ito and her son to stay in the accommodation from 1 February until 16 April 2025. Rent was agreed at $350.00 per week which included power and utility costs. The accommodation was supplied fully furnished, including the supply of linen (sheets, towels and the like). The accommodation is a self- contained unit which is part of Ms Sultan’s home. Ms Sultan lives at the property with her two children.

Ms Ito moved into the accommodation on 1 February 2025, but she found the accommodation unsuitable. She therefore moved out on 16 February and went to stay with Ms Kyobashi.

Ms Ito had paid a bond of $700.00 to Ms Sultan and she filed this application for a refund of the amount paid.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to hearing and determining disputes between landlords and tenants (and between landlords and a guarantor of a tenant’s obligations) provided the dispute is in relation to a tenancy that comes within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The starting point in answering the question of whether the tenancy comes within the Act is section 4 which provides that the Act applies to all tenancies of residential premises unless specifically excluded.

Section 5 of the Act contains a list of occupancies which are excluded from the Act. The first relevant exclusion is section 5(1)(n) which provides that the Act does not apply “where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.”

The second possible exception is section 5(1)(k) which excludes occupancies that are: “(i) intended to provide temporary or transient accommodation (such as that provided by hotels and motels), being accommodation that is ordinarily provided for periods of less than 28 days at a time; and (ii) are subject to an agreement that has been entered into for the purpose of providing temporary or transient accommodation that continues to be provided under the agreement.”

I am satisfied that the section 5(1)(n) exception does not apply here. It is clear, on the evidence, that the premises were fully self-contained and separate from Ms Sultan’s home. Ms Ito and her son were given or intended to be given exclusive occupation of the premises for the period of the occupancy and it was not a situation where the occupants and the owner/landlord were or would be living in the same premises.

However, I find that the occupancy does come within the section 5(1)(k) exception. The premises were advertised on Airbnb (Ms Ito was provided a copy of the ‘Airbnb’ advertisement that Ms Sultan had placed on her Facebook page), and Ms Ito said that Ms Sultan told her that she generally rents the premises for short stays only. I am therefore satisfied that the premises are generally intended to provide transient or temporary accommodation of less than 28 days at a time and the purpose of the agreement with Ms Ito was to provide temporary accommodation only (while her son attended the international school for 11 weeks).

I therefore find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim and the application is struck out.

Order

The application is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Ms Ito attended the hearing for the applicant. The hearing was held by way of video conferencing. Ms Sultan was phoned on the number provided but the call went to voicemail.
Ms Ito lives in Japan. She was wanting to come to New Zealand with her young son to enable him to study for 11 weeks at an international school. Her friend, Ms Mei Kyobashi, found accommodation advertised on Facebook by the respondent, Ms Sultan. Ms Kyobashi knew Ms Sutton, so she phoned her and arranged for Ms Ito and her son to stay in the accommodation from 1 February until 16 April 2025. Rent was agreed at $350.00 per week which included power and utility costs. The accommodation was supplied fully furnished, including the supply of linen (sheets, towels and the like). The accommodation is a self- contained unit which is part of Ms Sultan’s home. Ms Sultan lives at the property with her two children.
Ms Ito moved into the accommodation on 1 February 2025, but she found the accommodation unsuitable. She therefore moved out on 16 February and went to stay with Ms Kyobashi.
Ms Ito had paid a bond of $700.00 to Ms Sultan and she filed this application for a refund of the amount paid.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to hearing and determining disputes between landlords and tenants (and between landlords and a guarantor of a tenant’s obligations) provided the dispute is in relation to a tenancy that comes within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The starting point in answering the question of whether the tenancy comes within the Act is section 4 which provides that the Act applies to all tenancies of residential premises unless specifically excluded.
Section 5 of the Act contains a list of occupancies which are excluded from the Act. The first relevant exclusion is section 5(1)(n) which provides that the Act does not apply “where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.”
The second possible exception is section 5(1)(k) which excludes occupancies that are: “(i) intended to provide temporary or transient accommodation (such as that provided by hotels and motels), being accommodation that is ordinarily provided for periods of less than 28 days at a time; and (ii) are subject to an agreement that has been entered into for the purpose of providing temporary or transient accommodation that continues to be provided under the agreement.”
I am satisfied that the section 5(1)(n) exception does not apply here. It is clear, on the evidence, that the premises were fully self-contained and separate from Ms Sultan’s home. Ms Ito and her son were given or intended to be given exclusive occupation of the premises for the period of the occupancy and it was not a situation where the occupants and the owner/landlord were or would be living in the same premises.
However, I find that the occupancy does come within the section 5(1)(k) exception. The premises were advertised on Airbnb (Ms Ito was provided a copy of the ‘Airbnb’ advertisement that Ms Sultan had placed on her Facebook page), and Ms Ito said that Ms Sultan told her that she generally rents the premises for short stays only. I am therefore satisfied that the premises are generally intended to provide transient or temporary accommodation of less than 28 days at a time and the purpose of the agreement with Ms Ito was to provide temporary accommodation only (while her son attended the international school for 11 weeks).
I therefore find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim and the application is struck out.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5175031 — Boarding House at 60 Jacksons Road, Lyttelton, Lyttelton 8082

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5175031 — Boarding House at 60 Jacksons Road, Lyttelton, Lyttelton 8082

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.